When Does Life Begin?

real life wrote:

You do not respect HUMAN life

...and this coming from someone who thinks he has the moral right to kill criminals !!

I have more respect for human life than you do "real life". I just base my definition of what qualifies as human life on practical reality, rather than on mystical notions of god-given sanctity and superiority.

Your efforts to make me the monster for taking the kind of position on human rights that Amnesty International supports...is kinda silly.

You are demonising me for refusing to burn witches. Ain't gonna work.

0 Replies

Human life begins at conception. Those women who are having abortions aren't doing it just because it feels good. They know they are carrying a human life that they are going to have to care for.
When does human consciousness begin?- that is another matter and often is what is debated by pro abortionists.

0 Replies

Another balancing issue of when life begins must consider the issues of baby death in the womb, death at birth, and killing of girl babies by some cultures(infanticide by the millions every year), and babies born to starvation, HIV/AIDS, no health care, and dying parents.

Arguing the right of the embryo to equal respect of life is somewhat disingenuous.

0 Replies

disingenuous?-def- not frank, insincere, covertly guileful, crafty.

All of those issues you mention have something common
DEATH at birth
DEATH in the womb
KILLING of baby girls (isn't it interesting it is often girls) GENOCIDE
Starvation, AIDS/HIV, no health care all of which could lead to DEATH and DYING parents
Can you have death without life? Without consciousness?

0 Replies

auroreII wrote:

Those women who are having abortions aren't doing it just because it feels good.

This quote alone allows me to disregard anything further you have to say on this topic.

0 Replies

aurorell, We're talking about some people's concern for embryos used in stem cell research while they ignore all the other possibilities that are not considered in their pursuit of stopping embryonic stem cell research. If they are so concerned about the life of an embryo, they're ignoring everything else about "life and death." On top of all that, all embryos are not used after a successful pregnancy. Where's the beef?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

aurorell, We're talking about some people's concern for embryos used in stem cell research while they ignore all the other possibilities that are not considered in their pursuit of stopping embryonic stem cell research. If they are so concerned about the life of an embryo, they're ignoring everything else about "life and death." On top of all that, all embryos are not used after a successful pregnancy. Where's the beef?

Not really the topic of the thread, c.i. (says the largely nonparticipant observer). It explicitly is about abortion. Stem cells is a sideline.

0 Replies

Eorl
Sorry if that is offensive. The point is, how can someone who has an abortion say they are not taking a human life when the whole reason behind abortion is to put an end to the life that has been conceived within them? Is there another reason?

0 Replies

Sorry, pd, I thought it was about "when does life begin?"

0 Replies

I tend to support stem cell research using stem cells taken from the placenta or afterbirth not those that come from abortions or invitro fertilization. As long as we have other sources and can avoid having to decide the morality of this issue then let's avoid it.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote:
You do not respect HUMAN life

Why do you quote this fraction of a sentence out of context? Simply to hide what the point was?

Eorl wrote:

...and this coming from someone who thinks he has the moral right to kill criminals !!

Wrong. Just plain error. I have never said that I have that right.

Eorl wrote:

I have more respect for human life than you do "real life". I just base my definition of what qualifies as human life on practical reality,

How is it 'practical reality' to deny that a newborn is a human being?

How is it 'practical reality' to insist (as you did) that until one meets the wikipedia 'definition' of a human being, (i.e. builds a fire, produces art and literature) that one doesn't qualify as a 'human being'.

Don't deny it; it's right here http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2325255&highlight=wiki#2325255

Eorl wrote:

rather than on mystical notions of god-given sanctity and superiority.

How you wish I had based my argument on religious reasons. Instead, I have constantly presented medical evidence that the unborn and newborns are living human beings.

Something you have no medical evidence to refute, so you are left with misstating my position.

Eorl wrote:

Your efforts to make me the monster for taking the kind of position on human rights that Amnesty International supports...is kinda silly.

AI does not deny human status to newborns.

Eorl wrote:

You are demonising me for refusing to burn witches. Ain't gonna work.

Not even the topic. Just a wild rant on your part. You appear to be hysterical.

0 Replies

There are fundamental differences in definitions used by pro-life and pro-choice advocates:

Most Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians, pro-life advocates, and religious conservatives believe that: Pregnancy begins at conception.
Human life, in the form of an ovum and spermatozoon (i.e. forms of life with human DNA), becomes a human person at conception.
Any medication that terminates the life of a zygote, morula, embryo or fetus is an abortifacient -- it induces an abortion.
The "morning after pill" (a.k.a. emergency contraception, EC) either is or can be an abortifacient.

Essentially all m edical specialists, pro-choice advocates, religious liberals, etc. believe that : Pregnancy begins when the pre-embryo embeds itself in the wall of the uterus, about twelve days after conception.
Human life becomes a human person later in pregnancy -- e.g. when the fetus attains sentience or at birth.
Any medication that terminates the a pregnancy is an abortifacient.
The "morning after" pill prevents a pregnancy from starting. It cannot induce an abortion. It is not an abortifacient.

With such differences in the basic definition of terms, dialogue between pro-choice and pro-life advocates is essentially impossible.

0 Replies

real life, you are the one insisting that a human being exists from conception, and asking for proof to the contrary. As I demonstrated, it's quite clear that no definition of "human being" (that isn't deliberate anti-abortion propaganda) fits a zygote.

Does that mean I don't think a baby is a human being? No, of course not. It's just one of those tricks you use to demonise those who don't believe as you do.

You want to call a foetus a human being...go ahead, it won;t change anything for me. I don't want to play word games. I want to look at the practical reality of the situation. I want abortion to be freely available for many reasons, not the least of which is to PREVENT late-term, unsafe abortions (that you would see punishable by death anyway)

You go on pretending that I think foetuses, embryos and babies are just so much inanimate garbage if it suits you. Nobody is buying it. I'm the one defending real people. You are defending ideals and trying to force those ideals on others.

As for trying to pretend you are not responsible for killing people when you pay others to do it for you through taxes, makes you no better than a mob boss....but wait, I forgot, you only have respect for INNOCENT human life. Guilty human life is, to you, disposable. Why? I don't get it. (Feel free to answer in the Cap Punishment thread instead)

0 Replies

"Pregnancy begins when the pre-embryo" (fertilized egg? as opposed to unfertilized egg) "embeds itself in the wall of the uterus, about twelve days after conception. "
Doesn't both a fertilized and a nonfertilized egg embed itself. I'm not all that familiar with the science. I thought according to the normal monthly cycle of things the egg does embed itself naturally and if the egg is fertilized it will grow because it has changed and if it is not then it and the uterine wall slough off (menstruation).
I personally don't find it logical that if this process is the natural course of things then why would when the egg imbeds itself make a difference? Isn't the difference whether or not the egg is fertile? But like I said I'm not sure if I have my science right.

With such differences in the basic definition of terms, dialogue between pro-choice and pro-life advocates is essentially impossible.

Cicerone, from my experience I've found that to be pretty much true. Ususally resulting in agreeing to disagree.

0 Replies

aurorell wrote: Cicerone, from my experience I've found that to be pretty much true. Ususally resulting in agreeing to disagree.

Since there are no meeting of the minds on this issue, "agreeing to disagree" is the only resolution.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life, you are the one insisting that a human being exists from conception, and asking for proof to the contrary. As I demonstrated, it's quite clear that no definition of "human being" (that isn't deliberate anti-abortion propaganda) fits a zygote.

Does that mean I don't think a baby is a human being? No, of course not. It's just one of those tricks you use to demonise those who don't believe as you do.

This is in direct contradiction to your previously stated position:

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote:
Eorl wrote:
The definition of what constitutes a human being is readily available anywhere, and foetuses don't fit.

Previously, you seemed to imply that a newborn didn't fit either. You posted this definition from Wiki........
..........It would seem that a newborn infant might fail to meet this definition in the eyes of some.

That's correct, babies don't qualify either

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote:
Are you prepared to state unequivocally that newborns ARE human beings?

If newborns are human beings, at EXACTLY what point did they obtain that status?

If newborns are NOT human beings, then at EXACTLY what point DO they become human beings?

I agree real life. Newborns are not complete human beings either, which is why society refuses them the right to drive a car, drink, vote, work, scuba dive. How many times have we been here?

see entire exchange at http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=75350&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=wiki&start=630

So, are you holding or folding? Are newborns human beings or not?

Will the real Eorl please stand up?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

There are fundamental differences in definitions used by pro-life and pro-choice advocates:

Most Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians, pro-life advocates, and religious conservatives believe that: Pregnancy begins at conception.
Human life, in the form of an ovum and spermatozoon (i.e. forms of life with human DNA), becomes a human person at conception.
Any medication that terminates the life of a zygote, morula, embryo or fetus is an abortifacient -- it induces an abortion.
The "morning after pill" (a.k.a. emergency contraception, EC) either is or can be an abortifacient.

Essentially all m edical specialists, pro-choice advocates, religious liberals, etc. believe that : Pregnancy begins when the pre-embryo embeds itself in the wall of the uterus, about twelve days after conception.
Human life becomes a human person later in pregnancy -- e.g. when the fetus attains sentience or at birth.
Any medication that terminates the a pregnancy is an abortifacient.
The "morning after" pill prevents a pregnancy from starting. It cannot induce an abortion. It is not an abortifacient.

With such differences in the basic definition of terms, dialogue between pro-choice and pro-life advocates is essentially impossible.

The difference in terms is apparent, because you are discussing when 'pregnancy' begins and implying that pro-life folks are incorrect, when actually the pro-life position is regarding when the LIFE of the unborn begins, not when a doctor starts counting weeks for the mother.

It's two different things and you know it, you simply hope others will not notice your verbal sleight of hand.

BTW, you have often said you do not apply your standard of right and wrong to any but yourself, so how can you tell pro-lifers they are wrong, if you are to remain consistent?

It would seem quite hypocritical of you to make such a judgement when your claim is that you NEVER apply your standard of right and wrong to others.

0 Replies

real life, Go back and read my post again. I only identified the two positions under discussion, and the reasons why there will never be any agreement.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

real life, Go back and read my post again. I only identified the two positions under discussion, and the reasons why there will never be any agreement.

You falsely stated the pro-life position and then proceeded to attack it.

Nice job.

0 Replies

I didn't attack any position; I said "With such differences in the basic definition of terms, dialogue between pro-choice and pro-life advocates is essentially impossible."

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know